Yes, there is a definite need for an organization that represents younger generations. The pendulum of power in a true democracy always strives for balance.

It's important to remember that the AARP was originally founded by Ethel Percy Andrus as she fought to make sure retired teachers received higher pensions and better health insurance for retirees. The AARP succeeded in accomplishing both goals as their "sponsored" plans carry a lions-share of the health care marketplace, which they are most generously compensated for through royalty payments, which is their biggest source of revenue. Younger generations are disproportionately represented and are suffering as a result of the lack of political courage by our elected leaders to effectively represent all generations, and not only those over fifty. What happened to shared sacrifice? Can you imagine General Eisenhower telling his troops on D-Day that only some of them are going to be called to sacrifice for the continuity of freedom? No, all were called. And we all stood together as one Union, regardless of age. Also, how many people do you know who are retired at the age of 50? There is a need for an organization that represents generations under the age of 65 and well below 50 to ensure equal representation. The AARP has continuously moved the goal posts on their membership requirements and their brand for one reason, more revenue. The AARP's membership is only made up of a handful of minorities, despite the AARP's efforts to brand themselves other wise. What we're seeing now is an organization, with the help of many elected leaders, work to ensure that younger generations don't engage & don't vote. It's much easier for interests groups and many of our notoriously uninformed elected leaders to only pay attention to those who both keep them in power and provide their funding. Ask yourself this, "What's the best way to motivate someone to act?" Answer: "Tell them what they can't do." Younger generations are realizing they're being left out of the policy debate and will shoulder the burden of mistakes and debt that older generations and elected leaders have irresponsibly passed on to them. The AARP is an incredibly powerful organization, but this doesn't mean they should have a monopoly on those who are working and between the ages of 50 to 64. The AARP's membership numbers are actually shrinking. They once had 40 million members and now only have 37 million. Our nation is changing. Boomers are gaining power at the expense of Generation X and the Millennials. Instead of making an argument based on the false premise that younger generations have plenty of groups to represent their needs, one perhaps should educate themselves about interests groups in Washington. They are more driven by political ideology and partisan agendas rather than protecting a generational block of Americans. Don't underestimate the power of those who are told they don't count, and they're naive, and don't need protection. In reality, it's just the opposite. Lastly, Thomas Jefferson was a mere 33 years old when he penned the Declaration of Independence. How's that for the naivete' of the young?

There should be an organization for young people like older people have the AARP.

Yes, there should be an organization for young people much like the AARP exists for older people. An organization that can help provide group resources to a group of similar individuals can be valuable for that group. This type of organization can also pool their resources to accomplish things collectively.

Yes there should be an AARP type of organization for young people.

Yes younger Americans would benefit if a AARP type organization were formed to consolidate their voting power, purchasing power and voting strength for the common good of all young people. The 18 to 39 year block would be the strongest segment of American society, if they were to combine for mutual interest.

Nobody Would Join It

Young people either tend to be naive, and many of them just don't care. It's easy to see this when you look at who and who doesn't to turn out to vote each election. Young people stay at home. So, even if there was an organization patterned after AARP, nobody would join it.

Doesn't seem needed

I think young people have enough ways to find "groups" for them without forming some new ill-defined one that's their equivalent of the AARP. I don't see the purpose, the youth of this country have plenty of eyes on them already looking to them to make the future better, they're not some forgotten group that needs representation.

No, an organization like AARP is not needed for young people.

No, an organization like AARP is not needed for young people because young people are very Internet savvy. The AARP organization puts everything in one place, including help with travel arrangements, discounts on insurance, financial advice, and so on. Young people can very easily navigate around the Internet to procure all of these things.